US Presidential Candidates

Profits are transparent and gained through a voluntary exchange. What gain do policy makers get? Bureaucrats? The targets of government programs? Those are far less obvious.

As for efficiency, the cost of a program is spread over a large population. That is only efficient if that single program serves all the population equally. Given our large and diverse population, government programs tend to be too inflexible to serve the various members of our population. The more flexible the program is made, the smaller the various elements of the population its units serve and the smaller the base over which those additional cost may be spread.

Which exacerbates the problem for us, because we would be compelled to participate in programs that do not sufficiently serve the need. This doesn't even consider the way the program meets political goals established by policy makers or is managed by bureaucrats to secure their goals.

The efficiency of government programs is a chimera in a large, diverse and geographically spread out population.

The E wrote:I have no idea what you are on about regarding morality. All experience we have with government-run or government-mandated health care shows that such systems are more efficient and less of a burden on individuals and communities than any privately run effort can be. Any privately run company is duty bound to extract a profit from its business, and it doesn't take long for the desire to increase profits to override the intent of providing a service to the individual or the community. I mean, John Oliver recently bought and then abolished 15 million USD in debt, accumulated by just 9000 people. That's a symptom of something being deeply wrong in your country, that people can be bankrupted without any wrongdoing on their part. And you honestly expect others to believe that this is somehow a better solution than having the government run it?

PeterZ wrote:Profits are transparent and gained through a voluntary exchange. What gain do policy makers get? Bureaucrats? The targets of government programs? Those are far less obvious.

So because you know and understand the desire to extract a profit, you are perfectly fine with lives being ruined because of that desire?

As for efficiency, the cost of a program is spread over a large population. That is only efficient if that single program serves all the population equally. Given our large and diverse population, government programs tend to be too inflexible to serve the various members of our population. The more flexible the program is made, the smaller the various elements of the population its units serve and the smaller the base over which those additional cost may be spread.

Germany's public health care serves over 80 million people. Do you honestly believe that we are less diverse, statistically speaking, than the american population?

And if it, for some reason, cannot be made to work on a nation-wide basis, why can't it be made to work on a state level?

Which exacerbates the problem for us, because we would be compelled to participate in programs that do not sufficiently serve the need. This doesn't even consider the way the program meets political goals established by policy makers or is managed by bureaucrats to secure their goals.

And would you say that the US' current health care needs are adequately served by private industry right now? Including the need to get adequate health care to the poor? Is the american population adequately supplied with timely and affordable health care options?

I would also ask you to provide an answer to this question:

I mean, John Oliver recently bought and then abolished 15 million USD in debt, accumulated by just 9000 people. That's a symptom of something being deeply wrong in your country, that people can be bankrupted without any wrongdoing on their part. And you honestly expect others to believe that this is somehow a better solution than having the government run it?

PeterZ wrote:Profits are transparent and gained through a voluntary exchange. What gain do policy makers get? Bureaucrats? The targets of government programs? Those are far less obvious.

The E wrote:So because you know and understand the desire to extract a profit, you are perfectly fine with lives being ruined because of that desire?

How does profit gained by people voluntarily exchanging their savings for a service ruin people? Engaging in more debt than can be supported is a voluntary act.

As for efficiency, the cost of a program is spread over a large population. That is only efficient if that single program serves all the population equally. Given our large and diverse population, government programs tend to be too inflexible to serve the various members of our population. The more flexible the program is made, the smaller the various elements of the population its units serve and the smaller the base over which those additional cost may be spread.

The E wrote:Germany's public health care serves over 80 million people. Do you honestly believe that we are less diverse, statistically speaking, than the american population?

And if it, for some reason, cannot be made to work on a nation-wide basis, why can't it be made to work on a state level?

Germany is the size of Texas. You 80 million are located in an area a tithe the land area of the US. Its easy to concentrate doctors, nurses and medical services for that size of a population located in such a dense conditions. Try to spread out the services provided to areas as parsley populated as many parts of the US. Not the same at all.

Which exacerbates the problem for us, because we would be compelled to participate in programs that do not sufficiently serve the need. This doesn't even consider the way the program meets political goals established by policy makers or is managed by bureaucrats to secure their goals.

The E wrote:And would you say that the US' current health care needs are adequately served by private industry right now? Including the need to get adequate health care to the poor? Is the american population adequately supplied with timely and affordable health care options?

The US had the best healthcare available before the move to government run system. We had doctors available where there were people and didn't need insurance to pay for the healthcare. Enter regulations and all of a sudden at became too expensive for a doctor to run his own practice. he needed all sorts of record keepers and billers and lord knows what just to practice medicine. My father was a doctor since the 60's. The intrusion of government made the US healthcare far less efficient since then.

The E wrote:I would also ask you to provide an answer to this question:

I mean, John Oliver recently bought and then abolished 15 million USD in debt, accumulated by just 9000 people. That's a symptom of something being deeply wrong in your country, that people can be bankrupted without any wrongdoing on their part. And you honestly expect others to believe that this is somehow a better solution than having the government run it?

Do you have any idea what the terms of all that debt were? I doubt you do. When you say abolished, do you mean forgave? Called in collateral to repay a loan in default? Do you mean tossed in the paperwork into his fireplace?

If he is not being sued, then in all likelihood he is calling in debt that is in default. If you can't pay for a loan do not borrow money. If he purchased debt already in default, then he is buying debt from people who already have stopped making payments on their debts. He is in fact helping out the poor sods who made the bad loans to begin with by giving them cash for non performing assets. Now he is trying to realize some value from that investment.

What is so wrong about the practice? People voluntarily exchange goods and services for savings or debt. Used wisely, this is the greatest engine for spreading prosperity the world has ever seen. Yet, like anything involving fallible humans, this can be abused. An not abused just in a predatory way, but because people can make bad decisions.

PeterZ wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Profits are transparent and gained through a voluntary exchange. What gain do policy makers get? Bureaucrats? The targets of government programs? Those are far less obvious.

The E wrote:So because you know and understand the desire to extract a profit, you are perfectly fine with lives being ruined because of that desire?

How does profit gained by people voluntarily exchanging their savings for a service ruin people? Engaging in more debt than can be supported is a voluntary act.

How "voluntary" is paying for a service (like treatment for cancer) when the alternative is disability or death?

Not much choice in that, but cost of the treatments would depend on system in place. Why create a system that makes the costs much higher than they should be?

Starsaber wrote:

PeterZ wrote:

How does profit gained by people voluntarily exchanging their savings for a service ruin people? Engaging in more debt than can be supported is a voluntary act.

How "voluntary" is paying for a service (like treatment for cancer) when the alternative is disability or death?

PeterZ wrote:Not much choice in that, but cost of the treatments would depend on system in place. Why create a system that makes the costs much higher than they should be?

Starsaber wrote:How "voluntary" is paying for a service (like treatment for cancer) when the alternative is disability or death?

I don't know. I think you'd need to ask the medical and insurance systems why costs are so much higher in the US than they are for similar results in the rest of the developed world.

PeterZ wrote:Not much choice in that, but cost of the treatments would depend on system in place. Why create a system that makes the costs much higher than they should be?

That's what we're asking you! The american health care "system" regularly produces horror stories of people going into a hospital sick and coming out bankrupt; this is, quite literally, unheard of in countries with government-run public health care.

Look at it this way: In countries with public health care, the primary health care providers have to make their deals with the health care insurers exclusively. The individual patient isn't asked to provide the money up front and then recoup from the insurance, and it results in the overall price of health care being lower as the insurers have much more power to act on behalf of their subscribers. This completely avoids the dilemmas people in the US regularly face; Going to the doctor for preventative measures or early diagnostics is a risk-free move. More catastrophic things, accidents and chronic diseases like cancer are not an immediate economic death sentence for the afflicted.

But please, tell us more about why it is a good thing that people can literally get bankrupted because they catch cancer. I would love to hear you defend that practice.

(Oh, and fun fact: Did you know that the average birth in the US costs almost 9000 USD that the parents have to cover either from their personal funds or via insurance? Look at this page, and then defend to me the need for expecting parents to ever be asked to cover the entirety or even most of the cost of the procedure)

They didn't used to be. We had great healthcare at modest prices before the move to government healthcare in the past 50-60 years.

Starsaber wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Not much choice in that, but cost of the treatments would depend on system in place. Why create a system that makes the costs much higher than they should be?

I don't know. I think you'd need to ask the medical and insurance systems why costs are so much higher in the US than they are for similar results in the rest of the developed world.

It is awful now but wasn't always this way. Why not go back to the way it used to be? Why follow your model that will not work because we are not only far larger than places like Australia and New Zealand but also much more spread out than Germany.

The high cost of medicine began its explosive rise in the US after the 1960s-1970s. It got worse as regulations increased.

The E wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Not much choice in that, but cost of the treatments would depend on system in place. Why create a system that makes the costs much higher than they should be?

That's what we're asking you! The american health care "system" regularly produces horror stories of people going into a hospital sick and coming out bankrupt; this is, quite literally, unheard of in countries with government-run public health care.

Look at it this way: In countries with public health care, the primary health care providers have to make their deals with the health care insurers exclusively. The individual patient isn't asked to provide the money up front and then recoup from the insurance, and it results in the overall price of health care being lower as the insurers have much more power to act on behalf of their subscribers. This completely avoids the dilemmas people in the US regularly face; Going to the doctor for preventative measures or early diagnostics is a risk-free move. More catastrophic things, accidents and chronic diseases like cancer are not an immediate economic death sentence for the afflicted.

But please, tell us more about why it is a good thing that people can literally get bankrupted because they catch cancer. I would love to hear you defend that practice.

(Oh, and fun fact: Did you know that the average birth in the US costs almost 9000 USD that the parents have to cover either from their personal funds or via insurance? Look at this page, and then defend to me the need for expecting parents to ever be asked to cover the entirety or even most of the cost of the procedure)

From a distance it doesn't seem to be anything to do with population or geographic size, why should these have ny bearing? It does seem to be a result of several factors.
The US mindset regarding anything that might seem socialist (see other thread here about California being communist - insanity), scared of government control, and mainly vested interests that will fight for the right to rip off people.

Probably too big a mess to untangle now. Mark Twain said "To create utopia first shoot all the lawyers", I'd agree and add the financial middlemen who profit from misery.
Our system isn't perfect with greedy specialists and drug companies always trying to get more than an approprite share, but it and dozens of similar others do meet the basic KPI of no one being denied lifesaving treatment because of lack of money.